Gasoline dispensing facilities (i.e. gasoline stations) often suffer from a loss of fuel to the atmosphere due to inadequate vapor collection during fuel dispensing activities, excess liquid fuel evaporation in the containment tank system, and inadequate reclamation of the vapors during tanker truck deliveries. Lost vapor is an air pollution problem which is monitored and regulated by both the federal government and state governments. Attempts to minimize losses to the atmosphere have been effected by various vapor recovery methods. Such methods include: “Stage-I vapor recovery” where vapors are returned from the underground fuel storage tank to the delivery truck; “Stage-II vapor recovery” where vapors are returned from the refueled vehicle tank to the underground storage tank; vapor processing where the fuel/air vapor mix from the underground storage tank is received and the vapor is liquefied and returned as liquid fuel to the underground storage tank; burning excess vapor off and venting the less polluting combustion products to the atmosphere; and other fuel/air mix separation methods.
A “balance” Stage-II Vapor Recovery System (VRS) may make use of a dispensing nozzle bellows seal to the vehicle tank filler pipe opening. This seal provides an enclosed space between the vehicle tank and the VRS. During fuel dispensing, the liquid fuel entering the vehicle tank creates a positive pressure which pushes out the ullage space vapors through the bellows sealed area into the nozzle vapor return port, through the dispensing nozzle and hoe paths, and on into the VRS.
It has been found that even with these measures, substantial amounts of hydrocarbon vapors are lost to the atmosphere, often due to poor equipment reliability and inadequate maintenance. This is especially true with Stage-II systems. One way to reduce this problem is to provide a vapor recovery system monitoring data acquisition and analysis system to provide notification when the system is not working as required. Such monitoring systems may be especially applicable to Stage-II systems.
When working properly, Stage-II vapor recovery results in equal exchanges of air or vapor (A) and liquid (L) between the main fuel storage tank and the consumer's gas tank. Ideally, Stage-II vapor recovery produces an A/L ratio very close to 1. In other words, returned vapor replaces an equal amount of liquid in the main fuel storage tank during refueling transactions. When the A/L ratio is close to 1, refueling vapors are collected, the ingress of fresh air into the storage tank is minimized and the accumulation of an excess of positive or negative pressure in the main fuel storage tank is prevented. This minimizes losses at the dispensing nozzle and evaporation and leakage of excess vapors from the containment storage tank. Measurement of the A/L ratio thus provides an indication of proper Stage-II vapor collection operation. A low ratio means that vapor is not moving properly through the dispensing nozzle, hose, or other part of the system back to the storage tank, possibly due to an obstruction or defective component.
Recently, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been producing new requirements for Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) equipment. These include stringent vapor recovery system monitoring and In-Station Diagnostics (ISD) requirements to continuously determine whether or not the systems are working properly. CARB has proposed that, when the A/L ratio drops below a prescribed limit for a single or some sequence of fueling transactions, an alarm be issued and the underground storage tank pump be disabled to allow repair to prevent further significant vapor losses. The proposed regulations also specify an elaborate and expensive monitoring system with many sensors which will be difficult to wire to a common data acquisition system.
The CARB proposal requires that Air-to-Liquid (A/L) volume ratio sensors be installed at each dispensing hose or fuel dispensing point and pressure sensors be installed to measure the main fuel storage tank vapor space pressure. Note that the term ‘Air’ is used loosely here to refer to the air-vapor mix being returned from the refueled vehicle tank to the Underground storage tank. The sensors would be wired to a common data acquisition system used for data logging, storage, and limited pass/fail analysis. It is likely that such sensors would comprise Air Flow Sensors (AFS's).
A first embodiment of the present invention provides a more practical and less expensive solution than that proposed by CARB, which can substantially provide the monitoring capabilities needed. In this first embodiment of the present invention, the multiple AFS's called for by the CARB proposal may be replaced by fewer, or only one, AFS in conjunction with a more sophisticated AFS data analysis method.
With respect to use of vapor pressure sensors, CARB also proposes that these sensors be used to passively monitor the level of pressure in the main fuel storage tank vapor space, which is common to the fueling facility, to not only provide indication of proper operation of Stage-II vapor recovery methods, but also system containment integrity. This is done by monitoring the pressure patterns that occur within the storage tank during the various phases of storage tank and dispenser operation. The complexity of these patterns is a function of the type of Stage-II system in use.
CARB has proposed putting constraints on the pressure versus time relationships to identify when the vapor recovery system is causing undesirably high pressures for long enough time periods when the vapor recovery system produces these elevated pressures, it may force significant amounts of vapor past the pressure relief valve at the end of the storage tank vent pipe or out of other leaky system valves and fittings and into the atmosphere as air pollution.
CARB proposes a passive test for identifying elevated storage tank pressures. The purpose of the passive test is to determine whether vapors are being properly retained in the storage tank vapor space. This is done by continuously monitoring and watching for evidence of a non-tight or improperly operated vapor recovery components by tracking small pressure levels over time and comparing them to prescribed operating requirements.
For instance, for a vapor recovery system that is intended to continuously maintain negative storage tank vapor space pressures, the CARB proposed requirements were (at one time) that an error condition would exist when pressure exceeds (i.e. is higher than) −0.1 inch water column (w.c.) for either more than one (1) consecutive hour, or more than 3 hours in any 24 hour period. An error condition would also exist when pressure exceeds (i.e. is higher than) +0.25 inches w.c. for either more than one (1) consecutive hour, or more than 3 hours in any 24 hour period. An error condition would also exist if pressure exceeded +1.0 inches w.c. for more than 1 hour in any 24 hour period. Determination of the foregoing error conditions requires frequent pressure measurements, data storage, and analysis. CARB has struggled with these requirements for a passive-type test and has changed them more than once.
In a second embodiment of the invention the CARB proposed passive pressure monitoring test may be augmented or replaced with an active pressure “tightness” or “leakage” test which provides a more definitive indication of system containment integrity. The active tightness test may only need to be run occasionally to find a break in the system. A once a day or once a month test is consistent with the intent of the variously proposed CARB test pass/fail criteria.
In yet another embodiment of the invention, the CARB proposed passive test for leakage may be replaced with an improved passive test for vapor leakage. Instead of measuring absolute pressure in the vapor containing elements of a facility, in the improved test changes in pressure over time are used to determine whether vapors are leaking from the system.
Both the aforementioned CARB methods for determining vapor recovery system performance and those of the invention may be detrimentally effected by the introduction of vehicles with Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) devices that recover refueling vapors onboard the vehicle. Vapors produced as a result of dispensing fuel into an ORVR equipped vehicle are collected onboard, and accordingly, are not available to flow through a vapor return passage to an AFS for measurement. Thus, refueling an ORVR equipped vehicle results in a positive liquid fuel flow reading, but no return vapor flow reading (i.e. an A/L ratio equal to 0 or close thereto)—a condition that normally indicates vapor recovery malfunction. Because the vapor recovery system cannot distinguish between ORVR equipped vehicles and conventional vehicles, the vapor recovery system may be falsely determined to be malfunctioning when an ORVR equipped vehicle is refueled.
In the coming years, 2000 to 2020 and beyond, the proportion of ORVR vehicles in use will increase. Therefore this problem will be become more severe in the coming decades. If A/L sensing is to be used successfully for vapor recovery system monitoring, then a method is needed to distinguish between failed vapor recovery test events caused by an ORVR vapor-blocking vehicle and true failed vapor recovery test events (which can only occur for non-ORVR equipped vehicles).